Somewhere 'neath those sad sparkling eyes,Deep a brooding soul hidden lies.Glued to a slight delicate frame of flesh, Magnifying fiery passions pouring out her chest. Immortal, oh, her youthful flesh cries out, Through the playful carefree smile of her mouth. Her veins flow with wine of ashen grapes, Hallowed by heroes of olden days.They whisper in the dark recesses of her soul:"Trod the path the Saints and Mystics roam, Leading to the starry mansion of our heavenly home."

A Young Woman

Once, in a flowing land of beer and cheese,Graced was earth, with a newborn babe.As angels giggled in autumn breeze,They knit her soul and formed her frame.

With dolls she played as seasons changed,Nature fed, and she bloomed like Spring.In her it kindly held its gaze,In her it breathed stuff men do crave.Then God shone in a human way.Then hearts leapt and laughed and played.

A world appeared; she learned what it meant,To be jaded, used, cracked like cement.A child of Adam and Eve no exception, A cry from ideal planned at conception.A fateful lady in secret waiting,A ballad in the solemn making.

A reed he found her, shaken by the winds—Of places, persons, passions, and things.Yet when a smile shot forth her milken face,Stars sparked dispersing space.

A knight and lady in modern days, No sage could solve this ruin, this rage.So soon they parted, walked their ways,For they knew they are naught but puppets in a play.

The Child of the Machine

Sing to me Muse sing! Rage, ah rage!Seethe out your passions, tear up the cosmos.Sing the sad tall-tale of a cyber-heroLimp and bleeding, as witches squeeze,His blood on altars of pseudo dreams.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

How do we know what God wills? We ought to "probe the heart and listen to the inspirations of his unction," writes Caussade, "which interprets the will of God according circumstances. The divine action, concealed thought it is, reveals its designs, not through ideas, but intuitively (par instincts)." Scholastic theology speaks of "potentia oboedientialis": a faculty that makes us capable of obeying. It lies deeper than all the other faculties of the soul. It is by means of this that we are open to God and in direct contact with him. It is innate in human beings. Since God wills to reveal himself to all, he creates human beings so that they are capable of receiving this revelation. Even from birth there is a door within the human person that stands open toward heaven. It is unfortunate that all too often one is taught to close this door.

How does this faculty of obedience function? It responds to God's will by an inner attraction, an instinct, and an intuition. De Caussade readily speaks of "attraits non suspects", an inner attraction, which there is no reason to doubt. It does not require much self-knowledge to realize that every inner attraction does not come from God. The better one knows oneself and, most of all, the better one knows God, the easier it is to distinguish between what comes from one's own ego and what comes from a deeper level where God dwells. Since God is a "God of peace" (1 Cor 14:33), his will leads, as a rule, to a deeper peace. Our egoism leads, on the other hand, to disappointment and emptiness. There is a criterion that can help us recognize God. If we feel a deeper peace after responding to an inner prompting, we can believe that we have said Yes to God. We often know beforehand if a certain action will bring us peace or unrest. We begin to develop an ability to discern, which makes it easier to recognize God. (pgs 53-54)

. . .

The closer we come to this detachment, the less we plan. How much of our planning is a waste of time! We plan very many things that never happen, and we must constantly change our plans. Those who are detached can wait; they have patience. God's will reveals itself at the proper time, not before. Martin Lonnebo speaks of "the importance of giving life time. For most of us, a hasty decision is not good, especially if it is based on a passing emotion or an intellectual analysis. The deepest decisions ought to be made with the whole body, and not the least in the heart." It is in the heart that the Spirit lives and where we perceive his impulses. The Spirit has his plans, and when we have patience, he discloses them to us. There is perhaps no more effective way to die to oneself than by patience. The natural man wants to know what is going to happen. He wants to foresee, decide, and make plans. There is no limit to his impulsiveness. By not listening to him, but by listening patiently instead to what the Spirit is saying to our heart, the old man in us moves toward a certain death. (p. 59)

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Saint John of the Cross Selected WritingsFrom General Introductionby Kieran Kavanaugh

His Personality. . . Remembering his own experiences of poverty, he did not restrict himself to seeking the good of his penitents in spiritual matters but sought as well to assist them in their material needs. Sometimes he gave alms from the small funds of the monastery; sometimes he begged alms from devout people to help them. The poor, begging at the monastery entrance, he tried to assist concretely with food or money. His compassion for them merged with an intense sympathy for the needs and sufferings of the sick. They too, having lost their physical well-being, stood among the deprived.

His method for governing included a gentleness that was rare for the times. He taught that no one could be persuaded to the love of God through harshness, that severity only produced pusillanimity in the works of great virtue. Seeking to promote a positive spirit of cheerfulness and good humor, he was able to assist those inclined toward sadness and depression. . . .In directing others, he focused on the life of faith, hope, and love, . . . [he] warned against excessive reliance on external practices and customs. Holiness came from God as His gift; you could not acquire it by some kind of prowess but only dispose yourself for it, particularly through detachment and the simplicity of contemplative prayer . . .A lover of nature and the beauty of creation, he preferred the country to the city.

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

[Christ Jesus] who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God,

The word English word 'form' is translated from the Greek word 'morphe'. Morphe unequivocally means form. I do not care how many word games one plays you will never get around the fact that 'morphe' means form. Saint Paul was writing to the Philippians who spoke Greek. So we can assume Saint Paul and the God who inspired him intended to use the word morphe with profundity.

Existence and form are two closely related concepts. Notice the wording of Philipians:

who, being in the form of God (YLT)who, existing in the form of God (KJV)who was in the form of God (NAB)

All objects have form and if they exist, if they are real, they certainly have a location. God meets these requirements. God has form. God is located in the discrete object known as Heaven. Heaven is detached or set apart from all objects of matter that is the atoms and the fundamental objects that mediate light and gravity to and from all atoms and which all atoms also derive their form from.

Form in this context refers to an intrinsic quality. It does not refer to an extrinsic quality such as appearance, look, color, etc. Form is a quality that is observer independent. Form is a quality that an object has of itself, independent of other objects or comparative relations. So God has a form independent of anyone in Heaven observing God. And God has a form prior to God creating all the objects in the set called matter. God's Form and Existence require Faith and a new language in order to understand.

What is form? Form is a term that relates what is bounded from an immediate surrounding. (Synonym: shape) Form is a delineation or demarcation which distinguishes an object from lack of form and other things. Form is an identifying distinction. Form distinguishes the referent from its surroundings. It is the inability for the entity to lose its border/outline and morph into its surroundings and disappear. Form implies some type of surface.

Truly God is bounded from His immediate surroundings. He has some type of singular face delineating Him from nothing as well as all other objects. If this were not the case God would be a pantheistic God. When the just are assumed into Heaven they do not spill into God, and God does not spill into them. Rather they are initiated into an immediate relationship with God within an real object called Heaven. They see Him face to face with no go bet-weens. Still God is bound from the environment of Angels and Saints in Heaven. Otherwise how could a face to face relation be possible? The Angels and Saints do not morph into God, and God does not morph into the Angels and Saints or atoms, trees, stars, etc.

Furthermore even when the Holy Spirit is sent and resides within a human, he still retains his unique form. He relates intimately to that human form, more so that any two humans can possibly relate but he retains his own form. Truly the Holy Spirit is superposed with the soul and body of a human in sanctifying grace and this is similar to how the mediators of light and gravity behave. And yet again in spite of this mystical superposition, He, the Spirit still retains his singular form.

What is the form of God? I don't know. God is not of atoms or the fundamental constituents of atoms. God has a supernatural, a miraculous form that transcends all atoms and the mediators of light and gravity between all atoms. He is not of the same stuff Angels are made of or human souls.

Perhaps God's form could be described as intensely Personal. The One God is Three: Tri-unity. There is the eternal generation. The Father eternally generates the Son; the Father and the Son eternally generate the Spirit. Clearly all Three have form and cannot possibly exist apart from one another, and there is no choice in this. Perhaps we could say the Three Divine Persons bind each other from their immediate surrounding. God delineates God: The Father is in Me and I am in the Father (John 14:11). The Father is fully God. The Son is fully God. The Spirit is fully God. The The Father is delineated from His immediate surroundings by the Son and by the Spirit. The Son is delineated from His immediate surroundings by the Father and by the Spirit. The Spirit is delineated from His immediate surroundings by the Father and by the Son. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich described God like a sphere within a sphere within a sphere. So there are Three Divine Forms yet One Divine Form. It is sort of like how all the fundamental subatomic objects converge and superpose to form a single atom. They are many, and yet one.

Of course one could also describe God's Form as living, immortal, eternal, almighty, holy, loving and so on and so forth, but until we can somehow see and relate the the Blessed Trinity in Heaven our concepts, although true, will always seem insufficient, unsatisfying, incomplete and so on.

A few years back I found a lesser known translation of Saint John of the Cross'Spiritual Canticle. I've read a few versions (I cannot completely understand the original Spanish), and I find this one most delightful. According to the author this one reconstructs the the original by mimicking metre, rhyme, cadence, style, colloquial expressions, etc. This has a sparkling spirit and feel to it. It has verve . . . pizzaz. Not stale and stodgy like other translations I've read. Maybe I'm wrong but I think Saint John would love this translation.

The translator is John Frederick Nims. Originally published in 1959 by First Grove Press.

The Bride:

Where have you gone to hide,lover, and left me sighing? Couldn't careless for your wounded bridebut off like a deer from there?I hurried forth imploring the empty air.

You shepherds, you that roveover the range where mountains touch the sky,if you should meet my love--my one love--tell him whyI'm faint and in a fever and may die.

I'll wander high and lowafter the one I worship--til he's foundnot stop where daisies grownor shrink for beasts around;bow to no bully and obey no bound.

A question to the creatures:

O woods and brush between,foliage planted by a lover's hand,meadows of bluegreenwith many a flower japanned,tell me: has he been lately in your land?

Their Reply:

Scattering left and righta thousand favors he went streaming bythese regions, quick as light.And where it touched, his eyeleft a new glory over earth and sky.

The Bride:

New suffering what's to soothe?Once and for all be really mine, and cure it.From now on, never usego-betweens--who'd endure it?I want your loving voice, and these obscure it.

All that come and gotell of a thousand wonders, to your credit;each glimmering's a blow;like death I dread it--something they still stood stammering. Yet said it.

How manage to withstandso long, my life, not living where you live?Knowing your death at handfrom arrows you receiveonly to think of him? To think: to grieve.

Four and one-half months less three days after St. Anne had conceived under the Golden Gate, I saw the soul of Mary, formed by the Most Holy Trinity, in movement. I saw the Divine Persons interpenetrating one another. It became a great shining mountain, and still like the figure of a man. I saw something from the midst of the Three Divine Persons rising toward the mouth and issuing from it like a beam of light. This beam hovered before the face of God and assumed a human shape, or rather it was formed to such. As it took the human form, I saw it, as if by the command of God, most beautifully fashioned. I saw God showing the beauty of this soul to the angels, and from it they experienced unspeakable joy.I saw that soul united to the living body of Mary in Anne’s womb. Anne lay asleep upon her couch. I saw a light hovering over her and from it a beam descending toward the middle of her side. I saw that beam enter into her in the form of a small, luminous, human figure. At the same instant Anne sat up. She was entirely surrounded by light, and she had a vision. She saw her own person, open as it were and in it, as if in a tabernacle, a holy, luminous virgin from whom proceeded all salvation. I saw, too, that this was the instant that Mary first moved in her mother’s womb.Anne arose and announced to Joachim what had taken place. Then she went out to pray under the tree beneath which a child had been promised to her. I learned that Mary’s soul animated her body five days earlier than is customary with ordinary children, and that she was born twelve days sooner. (Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Remarks: Above is a quote taken from the prophetic visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. She describes the supernatural creation of Mary's soul. Strangely, she describes the miraculous formation and fusion of Mary's soul to happen about four and one half months into St. Anne's pregnancy. And she goes on to say that the time of this event give about five days, is customary for all ordinary children. By ordinary I would assume she is excludes Jesus, Adam and Eve.

This is by far the latest I've ever heard anyone say that ensoulment occurs. For example, long ago, Saint Thomas Aquinas, following Greeks, suggested that ensoulment occurs for humans from 40 to 80 days after conception (fusion of M & F gametes). But Blessed Anne's number suggest about 135 days, which is midway through second trimester. Modern theologians and members of the pro-life movement have seemed to abandon the idea that ensoulment happens post conception. However as far as I know the Pope or Pope and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church have not clearly and authoritatively taught when so called ensoulment occurs. So for her (Blessed Anne, in the 1800s) to clearly state these numbers is to me fascinating. It took me years just to get used to the idea!!! This is a private revelation but if this were true there would be all sorts of implications. And now, for a variety of reasons I agree with her. Assuming Faith it is reasonable that God would wait half way through the pregnancy to create the soul and unite it to the body. For different reasons this to me would be a a wise choice on God's part.

Notice also that she clearly states the Mary's soul assumed a form. Soul refers to an object, i.e. to that which has form, shape, figure, etc. . . pick your synonym. Form is the primary quality of all objects, and the soul is most certainly an object, NOT a concept such as love, life, justice, gravity, light. Jesus clearly references the soul as an object in Matthew 10:28. This soul miraculously formed by God, takes on the same form and unites with Mary's living, yes Blessed Anne says, living body. This agrees perfectly with the teaching form the Council of Vienne (1312). The Pope and Bishops taught that the soul of itself has the form of the body. My understanding is that they explicitly and authoritatively taught this doctrine because some philosophers and theologians of the time thought that there was this universal soul that superposed all humans. This would suggest that this soul has vast boundaries or limits, but this is not the case. The form of the soul itself, meaning that which is bound or contained from the immediate surrounding is identical to the body. In a human, the soul and the body are most thoroughly united, superposed, interfaced, interpenetrated, mingled, etc. such that there is a single object called human which can be described as having a body and a soul. Human does not reference two objects, but a single object. However the soul has form, boundaries. Furthermore it stands out, it exists, can be described as three dimensional, has location, has unique properties and abilities and is made of that which is not of Mother Nature, call it soulium if you like. But the soul does not assume its form from the same fundamental object which atoms derive their form, the same which they use to enact light and gravity. The soul of itself is not inherently connected to all the atoms of the Universe. It does not belong to the network of matter. Nevertheless when it is united to the body in the perfect and intimate relation of a human it is connected to matter via the body.

And last Blessed Anne says she saw this soul unite to the LIVING body of Mary in Saint Anne's womb. She seems to suggest that Mary's body was already alive in Saint Anne's womb prior to ensoulment. Although assuming Faith the soul is an essential featured object to mature humans, Blessed Anne's words would seem to suggest that an object can be described as living prior to ensoulment meaning that the soul is not necessary for an object to enact the dynamic relation called life. And from here we need to start discussing definitions of life, establishing contexts, and so on. This is all I will say in this blog post for now, but this is by far a most stimulating quote and it has made me rethink what the theologians have shoved down my throat.

Monday, March 7, 2016

There was once a fisherman, who wanted to see the fish in the sea dance. Day after day, he would go to the beach and play the flute for them. When at length he saw that the fish wouldn't jump out of the sea, he lost his patience, grabbed a net, threw it in the water and dragged the fish on shore. And then when they were flopping around on the beach, he exclaimed: "See you would not dance for me when I played my tune, but you dance for me now." [1]

Spoken like a true noble, the above is what Cyrus the Great said to an envoy of Greek-Ionians who lived in on the eastern coast of Anatolia (Asia Minor or Modern Day Turkey), after they changed their minds about allying with Cyrus. Prior to Cyrus conquering wealthy and well fortified Sardis led by King Croesus, Cyrus asked the Ionians if they would ally with him and his army. They refused thinking that Cyrus would not be able to take Sardis. Cyrus took Sardis in 14 days, and afterwards the Greeks came back asking if they could join him in which he replied with the above.

Interestingly, this sort of enigma is similar to what Jesus said in rebuke of the Jews:

But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplace, who, calling out to their companions, say: ‘We played music for you, and you did not dance. We lamented, and you did not mourn.’

The music represents the joy of Jesus preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. The lamentation represents the gravity of John the Baptist preaching repentance for the nearness of the Kingdom. The lack of dancing and mourning represents the lack of response on the part of the Jews at the time, and by extension all times.

[1] this anecdote is taken from Reza Zharghamee's lecture promoting his book Discovering Cyrus: The Persian Conqueror astride the Ancient World. He is the foremost Cyrus scholar in the world.

Friday, March 4, 2016

Greed: I have more and more; you have less and less. I am filled to the full and as a consequence you are deprived.I take without thought of what you need.I do less so that you have to do more.I live and you die.

Generosity: I have less so that you can have more! I deprive myself so that you can be filled!I only take what I need so that you can meet your needs.I do more so that you have to do less.I die so that you may live.

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Perhaps I will meet you sometime in the desert, where the Zamiri roam, and men and woman fit together like water and thirst. When they meet, they are everything, Alone we are nothing. (From Black Gold, Movie)

All the lessons of psychiatry, psychology, social work, indeed culture, have taught us over the last hundred years that it is the acceptance of differences, not the search for similarities which enables people to relate to each other in their personal or family lives. (John Ralston Saul)

In this brief article I would like to go against the grain and offer freestyle thoughts on inequality. In spite of the fact that I am embedded in a hierarchical Church, I sometimes lose sight of the importance not to mention value of inequality. This I think might have something to do with the never-ending stream of modern propaganda in favor of equality. Perhaps I and we in the West in general have lost sight of the importance and value of inequality. And as I grow older I am coming to a more mature appreciation of inequality. And this has nothing to do with blind obedience or a militaristic exchange of fulfilling orders. There is 'something' ingenious about inequality. Hopefully I can unravel this a bit in this article. Let us start on a base physical level. A male form does not equal a female form. This is qualitative. There is no possible argument against this. All one has to do is trace, and dissect the body. Hand in hand with this goes the fact that females have certain abilities that males do not and vice versa. Function follows form. Perhaps this is why traditionally both were to assume different roles. And I might add that each have certain strengths and weaknesses that we are all well aware of. And they have some slightly different needs. Basically, a male form does not equal a female form. There is asymmetry. They are not identical. Perhaps we can say that identity is a concept that is derived by comparing forms. That which has form is everything in philosophy and physics. Assuming Faith we may all be descended from God, Adam and Eve, and in this there is equality. Both male and female are alike in dignity. Both are human. And yet this cannot possibly be taken to an extreme in denial that a male form equals a female form or vice versa. Is this a contradiction??? Not necessarily. All one need do is clearly define equality and inequality. [I am in no way implying that this is a justification to directly or indirectly harm, deprive or use another on a basis of inequality.]

What about a specific male form as opposed to another specific one. Take Michael and Nicholas. These two names refer to two distinct male forms, but are they equal? Strictly speaking no they are not. Again trace the lines, dissect the flesh, decode the DNA. Slightly modified forms. And guess what? Michael and Nicholas have different talents, insights as well as a little different strengths and weaknesses. Different virtues and vices. Different personalities. Perhaps this has first has something to do with their distinct forms in addition to their chosen acts, environment, and so on.

There is even inequality in the Holy Trinity. Although Roman Catholics believe that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are each fully One God, Almighty, Immortal, (etc.) yet clearly the Father does not equal the Son, and the Spirit does not equal the Son or the Father. Again perhaps a paradox, but this is what we believe. There is asymmetry, inequality, identity in the One God. Without this inequality it would seem that God would be imperfect.

I suggest that there is inestimable value in inequality. Inequality sustains mutual admiration, respect, and even love for one another. When everyone is treated equally or forced into equality or unable to cultivate unique talents or assume unequal roles, perhaps we lose mutual admiration and respect for one another. And not only this perhaps certain needs are not met. I tend to admire and respect others who are able to do things I'm not capable of doing. I also admire others who don't have this same face I have to look at in the mirror everyday. This is not to say that they are not above criticism, its just there is something worthy of admiration, respect, love and gratitude that we have these unequal forms, abilities, talents, skills, roles, insights and so on. Personally, I admire those who are able to work with the poor and the sick, as well as those who have exceptional people skills. I clearly lack these.

Perhaps every one in a trillion might have the unique ability to reign, and lead whole nations or empires in a non-psychopathic manner without depriving, harming or pissing off the subjects. This doesn't happen often, but when it does happen that is a very unique, talented, UNEQUAL human. The stars must have aligned. All the subatomic objects crossed into him at conception. The Holy Spirit must have modified his form, stimulated and graced him, because he is special. He seems to be able to lead where most others cannot. And yet the strange thing is he would he needs his subjects to qualify as unequal. They complete him so to speak.

In love there is this attraction encountering one that is OTHER than you. Another form, with abilities, thoughts, and so on that are not your own. And this not just in context of sexual love. Also in filial love. This is one of the "reasons" I think I love people from other cultures and countries so much. To me they are exotic, and they make me want to get out of myself and my world. In any sort of love which most would agree is the most precious gift one may find, inequality seems a life-blood. Inequality seems to fuel love. Its like we need this inequality to complete ourselves, to fulfill ourselves, to perfect ourselves. Without it, we would be nothing.

Imagine a world full of American businessmen and woman in suits, same haircut, loud cars, same ideas and all lusting after money. Talk about dystopian. Talk about losing admiration, respect, and love of others and life. That is what I would be tempted to do. Perhaps this is why there are those who make a life commitment to go against the status quo. That tattooed Mohawk and inked body is a brazen challenge reminding us all that we are unequal.

Inequality also inspires us to go beyond our humdrum lives. If there was no inequality what would we possibly have to strive for??? What star could we set our course for in order to better ourselves? If there was no Ivo Pogorelich or Grigory Sokolov, those mercurial gods of the piano setting the bar high, perhaps we would be condemned to average piano music until the end of time. And what if there was no classical music or ethnic music to inspire??? Maybe music would degrade. And the list goes on and on.

So in conclusion to this brief intellectual escapade, I say we should celebrate inequality. I recommend the short story called "The Classical" by Mike Huttner. He briefly explores the theme of inequality, and he is the one who made me start to think of the inestimable value of inequality. Here is a link to his short story:

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Below are my notes on the soul, life, the human, conception, ensoulment, abortion, Immaculate Conception, Adam, Eve and other concepts.

Originally I wanted to write a long article but I have too many notes. I would have to write a book to assume all these themes, but I don't have time. So I offer some condensed sections if you want. If you want a crash course in the Ontology see my article from another blog. I'm not a Thomist or a Scholastic. They failed to understand the two fundamental categories in the Ontology of Language as well as the broad scope of implications this entails in intellectual endeavors. However I do use some of their philosophical insights in my own way.

Please note I am not speaking for the Roman Catholic Church, only on behalf of myself.

* Soul refers to an object, to that which has form. This form stands out (exists), is 3D (could be measured in length, width and height although the act of measuring does not determine its existence), has location that is a set of static distances to all the objects of the Universe, including God, etc. Although the English word ‘soul’ is translated from a variety of words used in the Old Testament the soul Jesus referred to for example in Mathew 10:28 refers to an object, NOT a concept synonymous with life.

* The soul is a fundamental object in the form of a mature human body, i.e. a body developed past the time of ensoulment which following Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich I will assume is 4.5 months into pregnancy.(1) As the body develops, the soul, somehow assumes the form the body until death in Faith defined by the Roman Catholic Church as separation of soul and body, which usually occurs around the same time that the body stops naturally moving on its own against the gravitational pull of all atoms especially those originating in the Earth.

* The soul of a human has unique properties and behaviors. An example of a unique property is that it can superpose with the body. This is somewhat similar to the fundamental set of objects which mediate light and gravity to and from all atoms of the Universe, the same fundamental objects from which all atoms assume their form.

* Soul and body is a description of a human not a definition. Human refers to an object. Objects we point to and name, concepts we define. Object refers to that which has form. Form is the primary quality of all objects and is considered holistically. So regardless of when ensoulment occurs the new living object formed at conception (fusion of M & F gametes, sperm and ovum) could be called human and belongs to the human family and to God who miraculously created the bodies of the first father and mother, Adam and Eve: who was of Enos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God (Luke 3:38).

* Although the soul has form, the soul does not derive or assume its form from the same fundamental objects which atoms do. The soul, considered of itself, apart from the body, is not permanently connected to all the atoms of the Universe by an assumed mediator of light and of gravity, the same of which atoms assume their form. Thus the soul is not subject to gravitational relation or continuous light phenomenon as are all atoms. In other words the soul considered of itself is not woven into the network of matter. So this would seem to imply that the soul is comprised of that which is not found in all of Mother Nature. We will just call this soulium.

* The Council of Vienne (1312) (2) taught that the soul, of itself, assumes the form of the body. So in other words at the time some philosophers and perhaps theologians speculated that there was one universal soul fused to all humans which would imply that this one soul had vast boundaries including the location of all humans on Earth. The Council of Vienne checked this error by explicitly and infallibly teaching that the form of the soul which is synonymous with what is bound or contained res ipsa loquens is that of the body. So the limits or boundaries or what is bound, contained, demarcated, delineated, etc. of the soul is the same as the body. Soul and body perfectly superpose, interface, interpenetrate, or pass through one another and remain intimately bound until death, defined by the Church as the separation of soul and of body.

* A soul does not form naturally as does the body in the case of all ordinary humans (excluding Jesus, Mary, Adam, and Eve). God miraculously creates and forms the soul which he immediately fuses to the body. So the soul has a supernatural origin and the Divine event of a soul’s miraculous creation and infusion is sometimes called ensoulment. The time when ensoulment happens for ordinary immature humans is as far as I know an open question in the Roman Catholic Church. Some modern theologians and members of the Pro-Life movement have abandoned the idea that this special Divine act happens after conception. On the other hand, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich said this happens about 4.5 months into pregnancy.

* Because the soul does not derive or assume its form from the same fundamental object which atoms do, it is disconnected and detached from matter, defined as the set of atoms and the mediators which connect all atoms. However the caveat is that God miraculously formed the soul so as to superpose, interface, interpenetrate, infuse, inform, or relate with the body in a most thorough, intimate, perfect and to us a mystical manner. The soul dynamically relates with the body, especially major organs such as the brain and the heart in subtle modes from which arises the phenomena of reasoning and volition in humans. The soul-body relationship is perfect, thorough, seamless, somewhat mysterious, etc. However this relation as far as I understand is impossible to explain by physics and philosophy or even theology. Spiritual writers like Saint John of the Cross described the relations of the soul with God and the body, however they often employed figures of speech or analogies. Furthermore God did not reveal how this relation works throughout life. Jesus emphasized the excellence, beauty, God-like quality, immortality and grave importance of the soul, however he did not explain how it works with the body or even on its own when separated from the body for example in Heaven, Hell or Purgatory.

* The soul’s status of being detached from all atoms is one of the reasons why it is more God-like than the body. The soul is majestic in that it does not rely on the same common (assumed) fundamental entity for its existence than all atoms of the Universe do.

* The Church has always taught that the soul is immortal and I believe this however it seems to me that this teaching is not clear enough. If the soul is said to live then the definition of life would have to be specialized for a context of the soul since the soul is an object which of itself is not subject to gravity. So life in context to the soul I assume has to do with its close intimate relationship with God established at Baptism whether of water, blood or desire. At Baptism the soul (and body) or simply the human is infused with another object/form, namely God the Holy Spirit. As long as the soul is infused with the Spirit (a Divine object) the soul could said to be alive. The souls in Hell are said to suffer death since they are separated from God, the Mystical Body of Christ, are not infused with the Holy Spirit, etc. So there are different contexts here. But in terms of immortality I think the idea is that the soul cannot be dissolved as opposed to living objects comprised of atoms, molecules, chemical compounds, etc. can. In this it is similar to the fundamental object that mediates light and gravity between all atoms, the same from which all atoms derive their form. This fundamental object by definition cannot possibly dissolve, break into pieces, etc. unless God performed some miracle which there is no reason to believe he ever will. But the point is that the soul when considered of itself has a different definition of life and death than a human or a cellular organism. In context of Faith, the Church definition of death for a human is separation of soul and body. This usually happens at natural death when the body ceases to move on its own against gravity.

* Popes, Bishops, and theologians of the past have modified the word ‘soul’ with the words ‘rational’ or ‘intellectual’ so as to distinguish this referent with souls God may or may not form for plants and animals, etc. This seems to imply that the soul together with the body is a mediator in the dynamic concepts of intellection and volition (thinking, reasoning and choosing, desiring, etc.). But the modifier serves to distinguish from Greeks and others who speculated or adopted the idea that plants and animals had what they call vegetative (nutritive) and sensitive souls. It is not clear what the Church teaches on these matters, but what is clear is that a human has this object called a soul, that this soul is the form of the body, the soul is a greater object than that of the body, the soul is immortal, after death some souls go to Heaven maybe via Purgatory or Hell, all souls will be reunited with new bodies according to their Judgment at the Resurrection, etc.

* The Church and Science have been reckless with the word ‘life’. There is no clear and unambiguous definition used to resolve theological, philosophical and physical disputes in regards to life. Some modern theologians and members of the pro-life movement are biased toward the idea that human life is only possible with a soul superposing an object from its conception. But this leads to absurd and even ludicrous conclusions, for example every single bacterium or single celled organism would have to have a soul in order to enact independent self-propulsion in spite of gravity. Assuming Faith, there are also other substantial arguments against ensoulment occurring at conception for example the wisdom of God foreseeing how reckless humans are with their gametes or the idea that immature prenatal humans have not developed enough to even be fit for the reception and use of a soul (an object we know little about how it works). Why would God form and infuse a unique soul that personalizes a human if that same has not even developed working organs, including the formation of sexual organs? If the soul is not necessary for all living objects, and the soul is the form of the body why would God have to create a soul at conception? At conception and for days a human is just a ball of cells. Is God obliged to ensoul a ball of cells? Is He not in control and do we not live under His command and reign? Are we not supposed to live in his covenant? Must God obey every successful conception derived naturally or unnaturally by miraculously forming and infusing a soul?

* Life for the purposes of philosophy and physics could be defined as a natural object's ability to move on its own in spite of its inherent gravitational relationship with all the atoms of the Universe. This ability is built into the form of the natural object. Life refers to a dynamic concept, a verb. Life describes a natural object's ability to move on its own against the pull of all the atoms of the Earth and Universe. A living object has an ability to independently move radially opposite the net effect of gravity originating in the Earth. Life is independent anti-gravitational motion. In Faith we can assume God designed an object’s ability to independently self-propel, given the right set of circumstances, environment. The fundamental object of life is the cell. Before a living object performs such actions as respiration, reproduction, defecation, meosis, etc. it must have the ability to move on its own against the gravitational pull originating from all the atoms of the Earth as well as the Universe. Without this ability a living object would not be able to perform any of the many functions proper to it. From this definition we establish a context and then we can ask whether or not a soul is a necessary component for natural life. I just assume that a human from at conception has the ability to move on its own against gravity and naturally changes, matures and develops whether or not that human has a soul. Ensoulment defined as God miraculously forming and infusing a soul to the body of a human could serve as a substantial development in the course of a human in utero.

* Assume that the soul is not miraculously formed by God at natural conception in a woman or the many unnatural ways conception occurs in modern culture. The new living object formed at conception can still be named human since this form is from a living object of a man and a living object of a woman which in Faith can be traced back to Adam and ultimately God: the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:28). The third and new living object formed at fusion of sperm and ovum belongs to the human race even if it does not yet have a soul created and infused by God. In this context the word ‘man’ or ‘human’ refers to an object. If that object has not matured to the event of ensoulment it is still a living human and abortion is still gravely evil. The mediator or mediators of an abortion directly and voluntarily harm and deprive the target object in a severe manner, in this case an immature and innocent human. If ensoulment occurs half-way through pregnancy then an abortion to those prior to this event would also deprive some immature humans of a soul and a chance at salvation, everlasting life, a relationship with God and all the Angels and Saints, its parents, etc. So it would seem that if ensoulment occurred halfway through pregnancy then an act of abortion would be even a greater degree of evil than previously imagined, for an immature human mature does not reach the event of ensoulment. God through Jesus can confer a Baptism of blood on a dying prenatal human, but he would only do this if he had already ensouled the same. Furthermore ensoulment half-way through a pregnancy would teach the important role of the Mother in helping her baby develop to the event of ensoulment. The role a mother takes on a profound relation, and calls for the greatest care.

* On the other hand it seems to me that in light of all the recklessness humans have displayed with their bodies, sexual organs, gametes, and sexual acts, as well as the punishment of original sin that we suffer in the body, God in his eternal wisdom and foresight would do well to wait to enact the event of ensoulment. It would seem foolish and even ludicrous in my eyes for God to create and infuse a soul at every single human conception. And why would God create a soul at all those conceptions done in a petri-dish, in-vitro? And what about women who have something wrong with their wombs? Or what about the tough nature of the endometrium? It almost seems that the endometrium serves as a testing ground for the blastocyst. What if a blastocyst cannot implant in a woman’s uterus and this happens many times. Will that women find all these in Heaven?

But even if this ensoulment post conception were true: abortion, use of contraceptives and abortifacients, sexual sins and artificial procreation are still not justified since there is always direct and voluntary harm or deprivation on a target in these acts. But ensoulment post conception, I think rather adds to the gravity and I speculate that this is the reason Jesus never explicitly revealed when ensoulment occurs nor is this found in the Bible. This would just be another temptation for men and women to misuse their sexual organs, directly and voluntary harm innocent immature humans and offend God to a greater degree. Ignorance lessens the degree of guilt judged by God and opens a way of mercy, forgiveness and healing. But now at this juncture in history as we seem to move ever closer to the Return of Jesus and times are unimaginably evil perhaps some of these questions could be resolved at least by those who still have Faith so that the Faithful can live to a greater degree of enlightenment and holiness.

* Jesus, Adam and Eve were extraordinary and they are not customary examples of when ensoulment occurs for most immature humans. Consequently it would seem that to use Jesus as an argument in regards to when ensoulment occurs lacks wisdom. Incarnation is a different event than natural or unnatural conception (fusion of M & F gametes) even if in the Apostles creed we use the word ‘conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.’ The contexts are different. Saint Paul’s teaching that Jesus was like us in all things except for sin is sometimes misused and interpreted to an extreme. In addition the bodies of Adam and Eve were not naturally formed in utero. God miraculously formed both of them as fully grown mature humans with developed organs and so on. They were fit for immediate reception and use of a soul, without any sort of delay for example months as in the case of ordinary children in the womb. As described in the Sacred Scripts Adam was miraculously created from the clay of the Earth and Eve miraculously, God using a rib taken from Adam.

* When Adam and Eve were created they were infused with the Holy Spirit, both soul and body in an intimate relationship with God. After they sinned the Spirit left them for a time and they lost their close relationship with God until they repented, did penance, and so on. When ordinary children excepting Mary, have their souls created and infused these same are NOT infused with the Holy Spirit and not in an intimate relationship with God as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin. This is remedied via Baptism when the human is literally infused with the Spirit, united to the Body of Jesus Christ, and all that the Church teaches. Jesus is God. When he miraculously became human in the womb of Mary his soul and body were created at the same time and of course he was filled with the Spirit. This was extraordinary. In regards to Mary, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich teaches that she had a virgin conception, meaning that she was conceived in Saint Anne in a miraculous manner unlike all other conceptions. Saints Joachim and Anne did not engage in a natural sexual encounter to conceive Mary ever Virgin, rather they simply hugged in a prayerful recollection, ecstatically, under the Golden Gate of the Temple in Jerusalem. This was inspired by God, and God miraculously fused their gametes in Saint Anne. (3) Mary’s conception was a supernatural event. Although she is a descendant of Adam and Eve, the generation of her body did not happen naturally as does with others. The way Saints Joachim and Anne conceived is similar to how all conceptions would have occurred had not Adam and Eve sinned. Anyone who says that Mary’s conception happened in a normal manner via a natural sexual encounter, states an error or a lie. Then according to Blessed Anne Mary’s event of ensoulment occurred 4.5 months less five days into Saint Anne’s pregnancy. Mary’s soul and then body united to soul, her person, was filled with the Spirit and in a perfect, intimate, singular, most highly privileged relationship with God always. Assuming Blessed Anne words are true, whether or not her living body was infused with the Spirit from its miraculous formation in the womb of Saint Anne prior to the event of her ensoulment I don’t know. Probably not since the Spirit was infused in Saint Anne, via an Old Testament baptism of desire. But her (Mary's) body and soul via body never suffered concupiscence or tendency toward sin, since she was conceived in a supernatural manner and quite simply because this was God's preconceived choice for her in her role of salvation. God prevented her from concupiscence in a most thorough manner even so far as having her conceived in a miraculous and extraordinary manner. Note the reader at this point may have gleaned above: conception and ensoulment are two different events. Pope Pius IX taught that from the first instant of Mary’s conception she was preserved free from all stain of original sin which effects both body and soul, however in my humble opinion, this definition does not necessarily imply that she was ensouled at conception. I don’t think conception in this context is defined as fusion of soul and M & F gametes at the same instant, in other words conception to include ensoulment, rather just fusion of M & F gametes (which in the formation of Mary’s body happened miraculously, supernaturally, unlike any other conception ever completed in history). If I’m wrong then I request a clarification and correction from the Magisterium.

* In Jesus’ supernatural and miraculous Incarnation there was certainly no M gamete involved so this event cannot be described as a conception in the meaning used in these notes, i.e. fusion of M & F gametes or sperm and ovum. How Jesus assumed a human body from Mary and how the pregnancy progressed is really not any of my business. IMHO it’s enough to understand that the Son of God derived his body from the most pure and virginal body of Mary. At the same time he assumed his body he assumed his soul which he created, but to my understanding this was uncommon, extraordinary, an exception.

* My understanding is that the act of adopting and implanting a frozen embryo, considered conceptually is moral since the mediators are potentially helping and providing even saving the target object in a direct and voluntary manner. The target object in this act, i.e. the immature human, is given a womb, has a chance to mature, to reach the event of ensoulment, birth, a relationship with adoptive parents, God, other humans, life, etc. There is no harm or deprivation voluntarily directed toward the target object in this dynamic relation. Intention and circumstances must be good. Note that this opinion does not exonerate, support or justify the horrific and gravely evil behaviors that lead to the conception of a human in a dish and then frozen in slavery, or to any sort of artificial procreation practices or any sort of contraceptive practices. I believe in the Roman Catholic teaching that the a moral sexual act is a consensual natural sexual act between a married man and woman that is open toward a possible formation of a new living object named human, one that has unitive, marital and procreative relations between the mediators of the act and done with good intentions and good consequences outweighing bad consequences.

(1) Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich: “Four and one-half months less three days after St. Anne had conceived under the Golden Gate, I saw the soul of Mary, formed by the Most Holy Trinity, in movement. I saw the Divine Persons interpenetrating one another. It became a great shining mountain, and still like the figure of a man. I saw something from the midst of the Three Divine Persons rising toward the mouth and issuing from it like a beam of light. This beam hovered before the face of God and assumed a human shape, or rather it was formed to such. As it took the human form, I saw it, as if by the command of God, most beautifully fashioned. I saw God showing the beauty of this soul to the angels, and from it they experienced unspeakable joy. . . I saw that soul united to the living body of Mary in Anne’s womb. Anne lay asleep upon her couch. I saw a light hovering over her and from it a beam descending toward the middle of her side. I saw that beam enter into her in the form of a small, luminous, human figure. At the same instant Anne sat up. She was entirely surrounded by light, and she had a vision. She saw her own person, open as it were and in it, as if in a tabernacle, a holy, luminous virgin from whom proceeded all salvation. I saw, too, that this was the instant that Mary first moved in her mother’s womb . . . Anne arose and announced to Joachim what had taken place. Then she went out to pray under the tree beneath which a child had been promised to her. I learned that Mary’s soul animated her body five days earlier than is customary with ordinary children, and that she was born twelve days sooner.” (Mysteries of the Old Testament or Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary)

(2) Council of Vienne: We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that the said apostle and evangelist, John, observed the right order of events in saying that when Christ was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear. Moreover, with the approval of the said council, we reject as erroneous and contrary to the truth of the catholic faith every doctrine or proposition rashly asserting that the substance of the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body, or casting doubt on this matter. In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.

(3) Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich: “I saw Joachim and Anne embrace each other in ecstasy. They were surrounded by hosts of angels, some floating over them carrying a luminous tower like that which we see in the pictures of the Litany of Loretto. The tower vanished between Joachim and Anne, both of whom were encompassed by brilliant light and glory. At the same moment the heavens above them opened, and I saw the joy of the Most Holy Trinity and of the angels over the Conception of Mary. Both Joachim and Anne were in a supernatural state. I learned that, at the moment in which they embraced and the light shone around them, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was accomplished. I was also told that Mary was conceived just as conception would have been effected, were it not for the fall of man” (Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary) . . . Blessed Anne describing Adam before the Fall: “The glittering beams on Adams head denoted his abundant fruitfulness, his glory, his connection with other radiations. And all this shining beauty is restored to glorified souls and bodies. Our hair is the ruined, the extinct glory; and as is this hair of ours to rays of light, so is our present flesh to that of Adam before the Fall. The sunbeams around Adams mouth bore reference to a holy posterity from God, which, had it not been for the Fall, would have been effectuated by the spoken word.” (Mysteries of the Old Testament) [She even goes on to say that if Adam and Eve had been taught by God and understood how the Blessing of posterity was to enact in this holy manner between them, before their sin, Redemption would have been impossible. So indeed these are very grave concepts.]

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Sit back and enjoy my extended article on the life of Job and evolution of the Sacred Book of Job.*

Job Was Not an Edomite

Edom refers to Esau son of Isaac; the descendants of Esau; and the land where Esau's descendants settled (also called Idumea). This land extended south of the Dead Sea toward Egypt. Job did not descend from Esau nor did Job ever live in the ancient region called Edom or Idumea.

A simple critical thinking can resolve that Job was not an Edomite. Edomites were enemies of Israel. There is no conceivable way that the Israelites would be interested in an Edomite or in preserving an Edomitic script. The Edomites had their own deities that they supposedly worshiped, and not the One God, the Lord. It is irrational, inconceivable and impossible that Job could have been an Edomite.

The confusion with the history of Job arises from the evolution of the Book of Job and the fact that Job was an ancient---lost to memory. The history of Job, his sayings and his dialogues were originally written on bark. They were copied and words were added, removed and rearranged first in the time of Moses and the Israelite's passage through the wilderness, and second in the time of Solomon. Solomon rearranged the scripts of Job into a wisdom literature. Over the generations people forgot about Job and did not understand that Moses and Solomon reformed the scripts that came to be known as the Book of Job.

The dispute over Job's existence has been a topic of debate since the time of Jesus. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich relates an episode of Jesus teaching in a Jewish boy's school:

At the moment of Jesus' entrance into this school, the boys were making some calculation connected with Job . . . He explained much of the Book of Job. Some of the rabbis at this period attacked the truth of the history therein contained, since the Edomites, to which race Herod belonged, bantered and ridiculed the Jews for accepting as true the history of a man of the land of Edom, although in that land no such man was ever known to exist. They looked upon the whole story as a mere fable, gotten up to encourage the Israelites under their afflictions in the desert. Jesus related Job's history to the boys as if it had really happened. He did so in the manner of a Prophet and Catechist, as if He saw all passing before Him, as if it were His own history, as if He heard and saw everything connected with it, or as if Job himself had told it to Him. His hearers knew not what to think. Who was this Man that now addressed them? Was He one of Job's contemporaries? Or was He an angel of God? Or was He God Himself? (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

The rabbis described by Blessed Anne in this episode remind me of some modern scholars. Their brains cannot conceive of ancient concepts or their limited sensory systems cannot find evidences of a story written in the Sacred Script thus they write it ALL off as fiction. They cannot unlock the mystery of the Sacred Script thus they assume the Sacred Script is wrong. This is the way of some. Man are they in for a surprise!

Job Was Not

Clearly, Job is a nickname of Jobab. In the Bible there is Jobab, an Edomite King:

These were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king ruled over the Israelites: Bela son of Beor; the name of his city was Dinhabah. When Bela died, Jobab son of Zerah from Bozrah, succeeded him. (1 Chr 1:43-44)

Job was not this Edomite king nor was he from Bozrah. Job lived an ancient patriarchal-pastoral way of life. In Job's time there was no such concept as Edom or Israel since Esau and Jacob had not yet to be born.

There was another Jobab, King of Madon:

When King Jabin of Hazor heard the news, he organized a coalition, including King Jobab of Madon, the king of Shimron, the king of Acshaph, (Judges 11:1)

Obviously, our Job was not this King of Madon. Madon was a city in Canaan. Joshua and the Israelites defeated this Jobab with God's help.

Two other Jobabs are listed in the Book of Chronicles as descendants of Benjamin son of Jacob.

I assume that these above were named after THE Jobab who in his time was the greatest among all the ancient sons of the East; not the Israelites or Edomites. A comparison of naming a child Jobab could be Saint Nicholas. I am named after Saint Nicholas as are many others. Once upon a time Nicholas of Myra was a renown and holy man who lived in Asia Minor. He performed a lot of great deeds. Today many are named after him but not everyone knows all the details of his life. He has become something of a legend. Similar with Jobab. He was famous and some were named after him but the details of his life eventually were forgotten since he lived long before the Jews.

Job's Lineage

Job was not a Jew, but perhaps he could be called a Hebrew if the word Hebrew is defined as a descendant of Heber, son of Shelah in Shem's line.

Job was a holy ancient patriarch, a grand uncle of Abraham. Job lived not long after the confusion of tongues at the Tower Babel. Job lived around the time Babylon was first founded by Nimrod using the stones of the halted Tower Babel project. He lived at the time the morphemes and alphabet of the holy and ancient Hebrew language were first traced by the patriarch Heber. Job was a descendant of Heber.

Job descended from Noah via Shem. Shem was the father of Arphaxad. Arphaxad was the father of Shelah. Shelah was the father of Heber. Heber had two sons: Phaleg and Joktan. Job was the thirteenth and youngest son of Joktan. In the 10th chapter of Genesis all thirteen sons are listed and Job's full first name is given as Jobab:

Joktan was the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan.

The first concept I'd like to convey about this specific verse is that these names first and foremost refer to real sons of Joktan and not simply to nations or regions. Real fathers established families, settled in lands, had jurisdiction over the lands and cultivated them. Joktan was a great leader of nations. From him sprung up various peoples via his sons who migrated and settled throughout the East. For the purposes of this article, East is defined as the lands extending from the Levant to India.

The last son of Joktan was Jobab. This Jobab of Joktan IS one and the same as the Job whose story and sayings are traced in the Book of Job. The next verse from Genesis describes the lands of the sons of Joktan and perhaps other children of Shem:

Their dwelling place was from Mesha all the way to Sephar in the eastern hills.

Mesha and Sephar are unidentified by modern scholarship. They assume that these names refer to places of Arabia. I was not able to figure out their exact location. These names could have been conceived prior to the confusion of tongues at Babel and the establishment of the ancient proto-Hebrew via Heber. I assume that Mesha refers to a land, probably somewhere in the Caucasus. Sephar, I assume, is a highland far into the East, perhaps even Pakistan or India. In Genesis Sephar is referred to as in the 'eastern hills' or a 'mount of the east'.

I do not doubt that some of Joktan son's and descendants migrated down to Yemen but I also think that other sons migrated far into the East. I am biased toward the idea posited by modern scholars that Ophir was a kingdom in the East, on the shores of Pakistan or India. I assume that Ophir, son of Joktan migrated far into the East perhaps to Pakistan or India and eventually a kingdom perhaps took its name in memory of him. Later Solomon would acquire primary goods from Ophir (see 1 Kings 9:26-28). They sailed the navy around the southern tip of Arabia and up to the shores of modern day Pakistan or India. In the Sacred Script under Job's dialogue the gold of Ophir is used to relate the value of wisdom:

It cannot be measured out for purchase with the gold of Ophir, ​​​​​​with precious onyx or sapphires. (28:16)

After the Flood, Noah landed somewhere in the Armenian Highlands and settled nearby, perhaps down in the plains toward Lebanon. From there his descendants migrated in all directions. Not all of his descendants migrated to the Tigris-Euphrates river system to work on the Tower. These were mostly families of Ham and a few families of Japheth. Other families migrated north and east to what we would call the Caucasus. These were some families of Shem and Japheth. Shem's descendants took no part in the Tower Babel project.

Joktan was given jurisdiction over lands situated in what we call the Caucasus. The Caucasus, or Caucasia is a region that extends up from northern Iran, eastern Turkey, and Armenia between the Black and Caspian Seas, includes the Caucasus Mountains and ends north of the Black Sea in modern day Russia. Some of Abraham's close forbears eventually migrated down to Mesopotamia from southeastern ring of the Black Sea. Abraham a descendant of Phaleg migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan (roughly modern Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, West Jordan, Southwest Syria). But Joktan, son of Heber ended up in the Caucasus. The Caucasus is from where Job hailed at least for the first developments of his life.

Job was born somewhere in the Caucasus perhaps off the North Eastern shores. Job was Ophir's little brother. So now rounding off the thought from the Job verse cited above, I would assume that either Jobab knew that his brother Ophir found gold or that this verse was added by Solomon for it refers to wisdom and understanding. I’m inclined to think the latter.

The Caucasus is a region extending between the Red Sea and Caspian Sea. There is a mountain range extending across from Sea to Sea called the Caucasus Mountains. I assume the Black Sea and Caspian Sea formed in the Flood of Noah.

Interesting Corollary: Of all the Christian Churches the one that holds a calendar feast day in honor of the astonishingly holy Jobab is the Armenian Apostolic Church. Armenia is a country located in South Caucasus.

The Land of Uz

In the Book of Job it is said that Job was in the land of Uz:

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And that man was pure and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.

I assume that the land of Uz refers to a region due east of Jericho, perhaps in the land that would later be occupied by the Ammonites and Moabites, and then divided to the two and a half tribes of Israel (half Manasseh, Reuben and Gad). So this would correspond to modern day Jordan, or in more past days, Northern Arabia, Southern Syria, or classical Transjordan. I assume that this land was under the jurisdiction of Uz or his descendants. Uz was a grandson of Shem via Aram, and brother of Arphaxad. Some of Shem's descendants migrated to these lands north and east of Canaan. Various families close to Shem were spread out around the Caucasus, the Levant, and Northern Arabia, Mesopotamia and perhaps other lands.

Job began his life in the Caucasus and ended his life in Uz [a land east of Jericho and the River Jordan] because of his misfortunes. After each of his afflictions he had to start over which, of course, was difficult to do in ancient times let alone our times. After his second affliction he moved south from the Caucasus down to Uz, a land under the jurisdiction of Uz's descendants which would have been Job's cousins. It was in the land of Uz where Job built a tent city founded on stone over a fertile plateau. Job was not a nomad. He lived a pastoral way of life that in the its last phase was centered around his tent castle/city. Prior to his final residence in Uz his moves were because of his misfortunes.

It was there in the land of Uz that he prospered and yet suffered his final affliction which was the loss of his camels to the Chaldeans (Babylonian raiders), his children, leprosy and a grievous temper. Only after was he given more than he ever had including three daughters who were the most beautiful women in the world. Job gave them the names transliterated roughly Jemimah, Kezia, and Keren-Happuch translated in English via the the Septuagint and Jerome's Vulgate as Daylight, Cinnamon, and Horn of Cosmetics. Jobab's Appearance

Job was a large, powerful man of agreeable appearance; he had a yellowish-brown complexion and reddish hair. (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Red hair can still be found in the Caucasus and the nations surrounding the Black Sea. It is interesting that Job's ancient parents must have carried the gene for red hair.

Jobab's Character

Blessed Anne also relates his character:

Job was unspeakably gentle, affable, just, and benevolent. He assisted all in need. He was, too, exceedingly pure and very familiar with God, who communicated with him through an angel, or "a white man," as the people of that period expressed it.

Without prejudice Job helped everyone in need using his store of wisdom and goods. In the grievous temper Job underwent, he relates how he helped everyone around him and this was a source of confusion for him during his sufferings. Here are some examples taken from the Book of Job:

​​​​​​​for I rescued the poor who cried out for help, ​​​​​​and the orphan who had no one to assist him; (29:12)

​​I was a father to the needy, ​​​​​​and I investigated the case of the person I did not know; (29:16)

​​​​​​​If I have seen anyone about to perish for lack of clothing, ​​​​​​or a poor man without a coat, if his sides have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep; (31:19)

Of course Sacred Scripture also bestows upon Job rare accolades as in the first verse of the Book of Job or in the Prophecy of Ezekiel where God honors him aside Noah and Daniel. And the Apostle Saint James holds the person Job up as an example of patience.

Job was certainly a Saint and he had followers. He had an intimate relationship with the Lord God, helped those in need and even was stimulated to understand coming of Jesus and Mary in some Divine prophetic manner.

The Misfortunes of Jobab

The misfortunes of Job, described in the Book of Job did not all happen at once. They fell upon him in sets, at different times and in three different abodes. After each set of affliction was some period of time, maybe even a decade. And in between Job moved, and started over. The words used in the first chapter of the Book of Job: 'While this one was still speaking. . ." refers to a general figurative expression meaning "And while this was still the talk of men, etc.' I assume Job was fairly young when he suffered his first affliction. Maybe in his late twenties or thirties.

In our version of the Book of Job the afflictions are traced in an abbreviated manner. Why? The ancients were terse with their words even if they enjoyed figures. In addition this particular book was originally traced into bark. They were not effusive with their words nor did they have the luxury of Microsoft Word.

After Blessed Anne's words I have Job's afflictions imagined in three different abodes.

1. A marshy region of the Caucasus2. Higher up a mount in the Caucasus3. Land of Uz

Job suffered his first affliction in a marshy region of the Caucasus which he moved too after deciding to separate from his parents. There are some circumstantial descriptions of his first land in the Caucasus in the Sacred Script:

​​​​​​​By the brush they would gather herbs from the salt marshes, and the root of the broom tree was their food. (30:4)

In connection to this verse Blessed Anne relates that

"No grain was cultivated in those marshy districts; but they raised a large sedge, which grows also in water, and whose pith was eaten either boiled or roasted. . . They planted many species of gourds for food." (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Eventually he found himself prospering with children, and followers who he originally helped out of charity. They cultivated the land and dwelt in tents. But Sheba stole his animals and killed some of his followers. This Sheba refers to a raiding party that consisted of members from the tribe of Sheba, great grandson of Ham, son of Cush, son of Raamah. The raiders were descendants of Sheba. At that time just like in other times certain bands got together and raided across nations. These impious raiders probably heard of Job's prosperity and holiness. They discovered his location, attacked, killed, stole, etc. Job did not have warriors to protect his goods.

After this first affliction Job moved somewhere higher up in the Caucasus Mountains. There he struggled to recover with his remaining family and followers. And there again he eventually prospered.

After Blessed Anne I assume that about a decade passed between his first affliction and second affliction. In that interim he was sent on a mission to Egypt in order to deliver one of his relatives as bride to some shepherd kings originally from the Caucasus. The shepherd kings assigned to him a land which incidentally was the same place where Jesus, Mary and Joseph would later flee to from Herod's persecution. There he had visions about man's salvation and even was shown a well that later Mary, the Mother of God would use when she lived in Egypt. In Egypt, Job fought against the sacrifices of living children. Those beastly ancient Egyptians would burn children alive on the apparatus of idols shaped (but smaller) as a sphinx. This is something they don't tell you in the museum exhibits. Job vehemently spoke out against those who practiced this and I think he was able to stop the practice at least for a time. This is hinted at in the Sacred Script under Job's dialogues:

I broke the fangs of the wicked, ​​​​​​and made him drop his prey from his teeth. (29:17)

The prey figuratively refer to the innocent children killed in sacrifice to idols or demons.

Eventually, Job returned to his native land in the Caucasus and suffered his second misfortune where the fire of God, perhaps lightning or a meteor, fell from the sky and burned his herds and some of his servants. After this he moved to the land of Uz and eventually suffered his final set of afflictions:

When Job had returned to his native country, his second misfortune overtook him; and when, after twelve years of peace, the third came upon him, he was living more toward the south and directly eastward from Jericho. I think this country had been given to him after his second calamity, because he was everywhere greatly revered and loved for his admirable justice, his knowledge, and his fear of God. This country was a level plain, and here Job began anew. On a height, which was very fertile, noble animals of various kinds were running around, also wild camels. They caught them in the same way as we do the wild horses on the heath. Job settled on this height. Here he prospered, became very rich, and built a city. The foundations were of stone; the dwellings were tents. It was during this period of great prosperity that his third calamity, his grievous distemper, overtook him. After enduring this affliction with great wisdom and patience, he entirely recovered, and again became the father of many sons and daughters. I think Job did not die till long after, when another nation intruded itself into the country. (Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Renown Descendants of Jobab

Abraham was a descendant of Job. Via Blessed Anne, Abraham's mother was a great grand daughter of Job. In the last verse of the Book of Job it is written that Job lived to see his children to the fourth generation. So for example Job's beautiful daughter Daylight (first generation) could have married and had a daughter (second generation) who got married and had another daughter (third generation) who married Terah and together they had Abraham (fourth generation). Job may have still been alive when Abraham was born.

At least one of the Three Kings who visited Jesus after his birth descended from Job. His name was Mensor. The names of the other two were Seir and Theokeno. The names of the Three Kings that some Christians are familiar with today are symbolic. I do not know if all three descended from Job, but the three did descend from Shem via Arphaxad. Mensor was from northern Arabia. He lived in a tent castle and tent city founded on stone. Seir was from the South Caucasus. Theokeno was from the north and east of the Caspian Sea, perhaps modern day Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan. The Three Kings inherited the prophecy of the Star from their forebears. The prophecy of the Star was given to ancients descended from Arphaxad even long before Abraham.

Jesus visited the tent city of Mensor not long prior to his Death. By that time Seir had passed away but Jesus taught Mensor that Seir had the baptism of desire. Later Mensor and Theokeno were baptized by the Apostle Saint Thomas who later traveled to India. The events of Jesus visiting Mensor's tent city are not written in the Gospels since Jesus decided not to take the future Apostles and Disciples with him for this journey. No one knew of what Jesus did there hence no script.

Prophecies of Job

Job was close with God and underwent prophetic experiences. He alludes to this in the Script:

​​O that I could be as I was in the months now gone,in the days when God watched over me, ​​​​​​​when he caused his lamp to shine upon my head,and by his light I walked through darkness; ​​​​​​​just as I was in my most productive time, when God’s intimate friendship was experienced in my tent . . . (29:2-4)

Job himself knew of the coming of the Savior, Resurrection and perhaps even a proto-concept of the Beatific Vision:

As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,and that as the lasthe will stand upon the earth.And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God, ​​​whom I will see for myself, and whom my own eyes will behold, and not another. (19:25)

Job also knew that he would gather with others after death:

I know that you are bringing me to death, ​​​​​​to the meeting place for all the living. (30:23)

Job was very wise and understood the nature of the Universe and secrets about Earth's history that not even the modern scientists have been able to figure out due to his intimacy with God recorded in the dialogues of Job. I get the feeling we moderns tend to think that ancients such as Job were naive and excluded. They were not. Job understood the coming of the Redeemer. Enoch knew of primal concepts of the Second Coming. Adam knew of the promised Virgin who thankfully turned out to be Mary. The problem was that concepts got confused, misunderstood, or forgotten over many generations. But of course God revealed much more to the Jews via the prophets and wise men.

Evolution of the Book of Job

Scholars have long thought the Book of Job underwent an evolution from the original tracings. I agree. In addition to translating and copying various persons added words and clauses, subtracted them, and rearranged them. Here is an excellent note from the NET Bible scholars:

Most of it is written in poetic parallelism. But it is often very cryptic, it is written with unusual grammatical constructions, and it makes use of a large number of very rare words. All this has led some scholars to question if it was originally written in Hebrew or some other related Semitic dialect or language first. There is no indication of who the author was. It is even possible that the work may have been refined over the years; but there is no evidence for this either. The book uses a variety of genres (laments, hymns, proverbs, and oracles) in the various speeches of the participants. This all adds to the richness of the material. And while it is a poetic drama using cycles of speeches, there is no reason to doubt that the events represented here do not go back to a real situation and preserve the various arguments. Several indications in the book would place Job’s dates in the time of the patriarchs. (NET Notes)

Now compare this with what Blessed Anne says:

The history of Job, together with his dialogues with God, was circumstantially written down by two of his most trusty servants who seemed to be his stewards. They wrote upon bark, and from Jobs own dictation. These two servants were named respectively Hai and Uis, or Ois. These narratives were held very sacred by Jobs descendants. They passed from generation to generation down to Abraham. . . In the school of Rebecca, the Canaanites were instructed in them on account of the lessons of submission under trials from God that they inculcated. Through Jacob and Joseph, they descended to the children of Israel in Egypt. Moses collected and arranged them differently for the use of the Israelite's during their servitude in Egypt and their painful wanderings in the wilderness; for they contained many details that might not have been understood, and which would have been of no service in his time. But Solomon again entirely remodeled them, omitting many things and inserting many others of his own. And so, this once authentic history became a sacred book made up of the wisdom of Job, Moses, and Solomon. One can now only with difficulty trace the particular history of Job, for the names of cities and nations were assimilated to those of the land of Canaan, on which account Job came to be regarded as an Edomite. (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

The Book of Job is an excellent example of how the Spirit can inspire successive holy writers to complete a sacred book in an evolution. The script began by Job dictating to his followers who wrote on bark. Job had recorded his dialogues with God, his thoughts and words for the duration of his grievous temper and confusion. And he had recorded the words of his friends, relatives and surrounding people who visited him. They probably used a dialect of Job's grandfather Heber, a proto-Hebrew. So these scripts were able to be more or less understood by the Abraham and his descendants. The NET Bible notes say that the Job script uses strange grammatical constructions and rare words that perhaps only Job, his family and followers conceived of and understood.

Moses removed many details that would be of no service to the Jews who lived at a later time. And Moses may have added a few verses. For example:

​​​​​​​He will not look on the streams, ​​​​​​the rivers, which are the torrents ​​​​​​of honey and butter. (20:17)

This is a variation of "the land flowing with milk and honey" that God promised the Jews found in Exodus, Numbers, etc.

It is easy to imagine that Solomon worked on the Book of Job. Solomon omitted even more words because he and his people were more distant relative to ancient Job. For Solomon and his people the Job script would have been to them what the works of Shakespeare, Chaucer, or the poem Beowulf are to us in the English speaking world. It is not always easy to understand all the words written by Shakespeare because he lived in a different world than ours. However one can readily identify his style and perhaps mimic it.

I can just imagine Solomon reading the exotic Job script with all these characters and thinking to himself:

There is no remembrance of the men of old; nor of those to come will there be any remembrance among those who come after them. (Ecclesiastes 1:11)

I assume Solomon gave the Book of Job its current structure so as to make the Book more of a cycle of dialogues between Job and his friends. He conceived the idea to organize the writings into a dialogue. I assume the scripts were disorganized into Job's dialogues, and that of various friends, family, etc. I assume that Eliphaz, Baldad, Zophar and Elihu's dialogues do not all strictly belong to them. They may have been a collection of quotes taken from various friends and relatives of Job and then new additions from Moses. Solomon may have added the family titles to Job's friends in order to help delineate the dialog and communicate some concepts relevant to the people of his time.

Solomon imitated the terse style of the ancient poetic parallelism so as to add some of his own wisdom as well as smooth out some sequences and put on some finishing touches thus revising the Text into a masterful and potent Wisdom literature retaining all that God desired to have traced.

It is easy to see that some verses from the Book of Job bear a resemblance to verses from the Proverbs of Solomon and the Book of Ecclesiastes. Here are some examples from Job that may have been written by Solomon:

And the eye of the adulterer watches for the twilight, ​​​​​​thinking, ‘No eye can see me,’ ​​​​​​and covers his face with a mask. He passes through houses in the nighttime, just as they had agreed among themselves in the daytime; and they are ignorant of the light. (Job 24:15-16)

These verses are similar to the adultery themes in the early chapters of Proverbs.

Summary

Job was a real person, an ancient of the family of Heber via Joktan. He lived a long time ago not long after the Flood. His lineage is in the Bible and certain details about his life can be drawn from the Book of Job. The Book of Job underwent an evolution via the work of Moses and Solomon.

* Please note that for the most part I used the NET Bible version. The quotes from Blessed A.C. Emmerich are from her works published in English in the early 1900s. I'm not ashamed to say I relied heavily on Blessed Anne, but I also put some of my own work into this.